Do people value consent in argument?

[Guide]

Are we, these days, capable to see the most great worthiness of the art of speaking that operates by granting a premise? And then arguing with what is granted by the human being in discussion.

[Mr Reasonable]

Are you asking if people think that it's ok to just overlook bad premises and give an argument credit simply because the conclusion is deducible from the premises?

[Arcturus Descending]

Are we, these days, capable to see the most great worthiness of the art of speaking that operates by granting a premise? And then arguing with what is granted by the human being in discussion.

Aristotle said that "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. "
I like that quote.

I am not sure what you mean by "granting a premise". If, by that, you mean giving the other the right and privilege to his own thought and argument, without insulting him,
I might have to say "No, we are not too capable of that. But that would depend on the individual and how much he values discussion and truth.

Is there a way of disagreeing with the other's argument in discussion? Sure, focus on the argument and in finding the truth ~ value that ~ instead of ripping the person apart to win points.

Do people value consent in argument?

Again, that would depend on the individual. If someone is only looking to be right, or already have their mind made up, they would not value consent of any kind - only what they believe to be true, whether or not it is.

You may not have been looking for this kind of an answer but ....

[Guide]

"Are you asking if people think that it's ok to just overlook bad premises and give an argument credit simply because the conclusion is deducible from the premises?"

I don't think your negative and irrelevant comments have to do with envy. None of us can envy what we don't know exists, and you don't know what philosophy is. Your dismal emotional desert doesn't improve by the means of talking on this forum. Nothing will or could change it.

[Guide]

Guide wrote:
Are we, these days, capable to see the most great worthiness of the art of speaking that operates by granting a premise? And then arguing with what is granted by the human being in discussion.


Aristotle said that "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. "
I like that quote.

I am not sure what you mean by "granting a premise". If, by that, you mean giving the other the right and privilege to his own thought and argument, without insulting him,
I might have to say "No, we are not too capable of that. But that would depend on the individual and how much he values discussion and truth.

Is there a way of disagreeing with the other's argument in discussion? Sure, focus on the argument and in finding the truth ~ value that ~ instead of ripping the person apart to win points.

Do people value consent in argument?

Again, that would depend on the individual. If someone is only looking to be right, or already have their mind made up, they would not value consent of any kind - only what they believe to be true, whether or not it is.

You may not have been looking for this kind of an answer but ....

Aristotle said that "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. "

If you understand this in the same way I do, I support this view vigorously. Though, its implication is not entirely thought through and something is still dangerous behind the warm jungle grass.

"I am not sure what you mean by "granting a premise". If, by that, you mean giving the other the right and privilege to his own thought and argument, without insulting him,
I might have to say "No, we are not too capable of that. But that would depend on the individual and how much he values discussion and truth."

I don't mean that. I mean that there is only an "argument" when a premise has been granted. That is the condition under which Socratic discussion is possible. Otherwise we speak to ourselves.

An insult has nothing to do with an argument; insults aren't arguments at all. Ergo, the obstruction of the ordinary phrase "ad hominem argument" (a square circle) when applied to calling someone a moron.

"Again, that would depend on the individual. If someone is only looking to be right, or already have their mind made up, they would not value consent of any kind - only what they believe to be true, whether or not it is.

You may not have been looking for this kind of an answer but ...."

I was, indeed, searching for the far-off much-needed fertility of the underworld from which this poppy springs and tilts its head towards the light of the sun, the human essence, namely reason. And so, away from the gods and Fate.

I don't sympathies with your notion of an individual, except that it means most people are bad in any pursuit, and very few are good at it. By lack of teaching or lack of inborn talent or both. The emphasis on the individual is still not received so well because among those with reason, each one has it. Of course, there is personality, as in Goethe, but it is a subject of irregular nuanced contour.

Still, it remains so, that not one here will speak with me as the Platonic Socrates showed to be possible.